Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:32:07 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Saving the latest errno from syscalls. Message-ID: <201003121332.16979.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100312092932.GJ2489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201003111624.51018.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201003111815.10186.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20100312092932.GJ2489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 12 March 2010 04:29 am, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:15:07PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Thursday 11 March 2010 04:55 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > While I was debugging syscalls, I found a very useful field > > > > in struct thread, td_errno. It seems it was added for dtrace > > > > but it is only populated on amd64 and i386. Is the attached > > > > patch acceptable for maintainers of other platforms? > > > > > > Isn't it better to do it in cpu_set_syscall_retval()? > > > That way you catch all cases, plus you can save the > > > translated error as well... > > > > I just took amd64/i386 as an example and I was not sure whether > > it was meant to store translated error or not. Does anyone with > > DTrace internal knowledge answer the question? > > I do not know that much about DTrace, but it seems that setting > td_errno in cpu_set_syscall_retval() is too late. Dtrace has a > probe after the syscall return, and it is called right before > cpu_set_syscall_retval() can be reasonably called. The probe only > issued for syscall that goes into sysent. Ah, I can see that now. So, if/when we implement DTrace SYSCALL provider for other arches, this is the right place. :-) Thanks! Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201003121332.16979.jkim>